[Avodah] "Watch Whom You Marry"

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, November 14, 2007 8:57 am, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: The difference is that marrying these two sisters was a necessary act.
: Rachel and Leah both understood how critical it was that they should
: both be mothers to klal Yisroel. HaShem *couldn't* protect Yaakov from
: this sin, because He too understood that it was necessary.

Who made it necessary? Everything from sexual reproduction to the need
for am an hanivchar to the dialectics involved that Rachel veLeah
embody to... are all on the table, things HQBH could have set up
differently Are you saying HQBH protects tzadiqim from sin, but not to
the extent of tailoring the necessary to avoid the need for sin?

Victor Frankl notes the value of every action inherent in the idea
that the entire universe is different because I chose to fill this
moment and place with this rather than that. Perhaps someone could
argue, Izhbitzer style (certainly NOT mine), that every cheit is
necessary.

On Wed, November 14, 2007 8:55 pm, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: From the above statement and many similar ones, we can conclude (like
: it or not) that in Judaism, the ends may very well justify the means.

I think it's fair to say that Judaism demands you assess all the
consequences of your actions, immediate and delayed, and weigh the
pros and cons.

"The ends justify the means" is an emotionally loaded concept. It got
that way because it was used to disparage people who value the ends
more because they are the ends, and therefore unfairly overlook all
the suffering caused along the way.

But the difference between ends and means is codified in halakhah.
Mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah, in contrast to asei docheh lav -- ends do
not justify means.


Yaaqov avinu couldn't rely on areivus to justify the claim "vetaryag
mitzvos shamarti". There weren't that many people keeping kol haTorah
kulah for every mitzvah to come up. Shemirah, though, means taking
care not to violate -- thus the /sh-m-r/, the implication of
describing a lav, etc... Tehirus, not zerizus. Quite easy for issues
that don't come up.

AISI, Yaaqov had to choose his ben Noach duty to both sisters over his
"chumrah" of keeping mitzvos not yet given. Therefore, he was just as
much a shomer mitzvos as RGDubin is shomer shabbos when he takes a
Hatzalah call.

I think, BTW, this also relates to the signs Rachel shared with Leah.
Yaaqov had to take precautions to avoid the situation, as he should
take all efforts to avoid needing to break his shemiras hamitzvos.
>From Rachel's perspective, the greater value was on Leah's happiness.
Thus, they had to come up with a sign, and it had to be Rachel, not
Yaaqov, who would destroy its effectiveness by sharing it.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv